latest

first, i want to apologize for the long blog silence. there are reasons for this. the 'link' feature of facebook, which allows the user to post links to interesting content along with a brief comment, is one of them; as i've done this on a regular basis, the need to write longer, original blog posts has been muted somewhat. but more importantly, i find myself conflicted about how much to share about the ministry and people with which i'm involved now. with respect to the former, it seems like a lot of the same events over and over again compared to the constantly changing events and schedule of our campus ministry. as for the latter, i become increasingly concerned that the people i share about might be identifiable by some folks who access the blog, and that has made me reluctant to say much. it's a challenge figuring out how to share enough so that people can know what's going on and how to pray intelligently, while protecting the privacy of those we serve. i'm sure we'll figure it out eventually. in the meantime, thanks for your patience and prayers. you're always welcome to join our e-mail prayer list (see the form on this blog) or e-mail us if you want a private update.

my girls are as busy as ever. i never cease to be amazed by their flexibility, resilience, and productivity.

• m continues with her studies at fuller seminary. it is essentially a full-time pursuit, though she has still found time to deliver meals to a family with a baby and to be a part of the inner healing prayer group. the good news is that she seems to be enjoying herself for the most part, and her grades have been very good; we're proud of her. her classes this quarter: medieval church history (loves it) and postmodern culture and theology in film (makes her crazy). winter quarter ends this week.
  

• b has discovered that it really is possible to have too much of a good thing (in her case, extracurricular activities), and recently elected to forgo her involvement at the columbia spectator. of course, that still leaves her mentoring youth in harlem, co-leading her intervarsity bible study, and running in a half marathon to raise money for world vision. in her spare time, she studies. :-)

• n is counting the days until her senior presentation, completes her winter quarter at bellevue college at the end of march, and will be hearing back from universities on april 1 (she's already 'in' at the university of hawaii). prayer request: she's also waiting to hear on her scholarship applications. with m in school, n has been cooking more and loves to get creative in the kitchen. the results have been delicious!
  

i am busily engaged in the various aspects of my role at lighthouse. a few highlights:

• i had the chance to preach in our current message series, embracing a dangerous gospel. you can hear the message here. before that, i also preached the last message of 2009. obviously, i'm not preaching nearly often as i have in the past, but the response has been powerful.
  

• i led a 4-week class (a DSL in lighthouse terminology -- 'discipleship seminar at lighthouse') on inductive Bible study. the original friday night class attracted 30 participants, so we opened a second section on sundays, which picked up another 10. the response to the training was varied -- some folks loved it, others not so much. but i am praying that we will get a critical mass of people who are enjoying the transforming power of God's Word on a regular basis and trained and eager to lead others in that same experience.
  

• i've been involved directly in a number of the different ministries i oversee: having dinner with a small group and helping them learn to study the Bible (many of them studying the Bible for the first time), serving with our HARBOR ministry (repairing the homes of those in need) and the Lord's Table (feeding the homeless), and IMPACT (a small group sponsoring projects and learning around issues of social justice).

how you can pray: one of the great challenges of my current role is it feels like the year is passing very quickly. i want very much for God to make my time at lighthouse fruitful, especially in the developing of leaders and the multiplication of ministry, and would appreciate your prayers along those lines. i am also beginning to explore what God might have for me next. i would be grateful for your prayers for guidance, and if you have a lead on a position you think i should consider, this would be a great time to tell me!

what are you reading?

a serious thinker is a serious, disciplined reader of books. i know of no exceptions in the modern world. (christian reconstructionist and austrian economist gary north)

i remember a time when it would have been hard to imagine not reading books on a regular basis. i love to read and think, and books have been a tremendous blessing to me over the years. but with the explosion of the internet, i find it easy to do a lot of reading at a certain depth -- a web page length analysis can only be so deep -- and to fall into the trap of wanting to know a little about everything to the point of not thinking deeply about anything. it's a bad habit i hope to break.

the list of books that i've finished recently is a bit random, but gives some insight into the kinds of questions i've been asking these days.

• the hole in our gospel (richard stearns)
• recarving rushmore (ivan eland)
• not for sale (david batstone)
• the tipping point (malcolm gladwell)
• just courage (gary haugen)
  

currently on my nightstand: desiring God (john piper), secrets of the vine (bruce wilkinson), good news about injustice (haugen), and how to enjoy the boring parts of the bible (philip rosenbaum).

to those of you who are willing to respond, i'd love to know what you're reading as well, especially if it's something you highly recommend!

happy new year!

2009 was a year of significant ups and downs for our family.

b made the dean's list, had the time of her life during her first year at columbia, and got a great start on her sophomore year. n got a 5 (the highest score possible) on her ap psychology exam and successfully transitioned to bellevue college for her senior year of high school. our fledgling church had a fabulous time away at our retreat, complete with heartfelt worship, outstanding bible teaching, and what seemed like some real gelling as a fellowship. m made a successful start on her seminary career, and later in the year, m and i celebrated our 22nd wedding anniversary -- every year a gift of pure grace.

but smack in the middle of everything was the precipitous dissolution of the bridge. we went from the 'high' of the all-church retreat in april to the resignation of all three elders in may to our final closure in june. under the best of circumstances, that probably wouldn't have been fun, but this was uglier than i ever would have imagined. i don't think it's a stretch to say that it was not our finest hour as a church. i was discouraged and off-balance for months afterward.

perhaps not surprisingly, i'm not sorry that 2009 is in the rear view mirror. there is a part of me that would rather forget the whole thing and just move on, but i know that is a fleshly impulse. in the economy of God, nothing is wasted. he does not erase our sufferings or our failings; he redeems them. the oft-repeated promise that "God causes all things to work together for good to those who love him, to those who are called according to his purpose" (romans 8:28) assures us that God's intention is to take even those things we are most tempted to bury and transform them into public declarations of his goodness and faithfulness.

we know this is true, not only because of the promise, but because of the cross of Jesus. that God came to live among his people and was rejected, falsely accused, humiliated, tortured, then murdered by those he came to save is about as bad a result as one could imagine. ignominious. disgraceful. inglorious. it's exactly the kind of thing that (in my flesh) i would want God to wipe from history; at least in eternity, one might wish that we could just forget the whole sordid affair. but God does not discard the cross in the dustbin of history. in fact, he sets it at the center of his program for redeeming humanity and all creation, never to be forgotten for all eternity. instead of being the reminder of all the worst parts of our humanity, it becomes the supreme example of God's love, faithfulness, and transforming power.

how God will transform the more wretched events of 2009, i do not know. but i am confident that this is his intention, and as i contemplate the new year, i find my anticipation growing. may we -- and you! -- face the challenges of this new year with faith and courage, the needs of the world with love and generosity, and hurts of the past with mercy and forgiveness.

new perspective

the current evangelical debate on justification rages on. some are excited by a new paradigm they believe better explains the gospel message and mission, as well as the bible texts which articulate them. others are drawing the battle lines, ready, they believe, to contend for the faith delivered once and for all to the saints. and as is often the case in the church, there are large numbers who are either blissfully ignorant or somewhat confused as to what all the hubbub is about.

though i am not always happy with the tenor of some in the debate, this is a discussion that christians must engage. at stake is the core of the gospel message: what makes the good news about Jesus good news? and what does that tell us about God's intentions toward humanity and all creation -- and our purpose and mission as those who believe in him?

trevin wax, a pastor in tennessee, has contributed a couple of articles to evangelical bulwark christianity today to try to clarify the issues. he selects noted pastor and author john piper to represent the 'traditional' position and anglican bishop and new testament scholar n.t. wright to represent the 'new perspective.' links to the articles are on his blog (find it here). i found the articles somewhat helpful (especially the one with the chart comparing the two views side-by-side), but thought that the following comments in response to his blog post were even better -- especially the ones summarizing the 'new perspective,' some of its implications for christian discipleship, and some possible problems, even for those who are mostly persuaded. i've edited them a bit and included them below. are you thinking about these things?

Nice articles, but I think you’re missing the point – or rather the Bishop’s (Wright's) point. He is not just saying that Piper et al are looking at the Doctrine of Justification through 16th century eyes, but that they are basically yanking it out of Paul’s overall argument in his epistles. The Bishop is saying, first, look at the Doctrine through 1st century eyes –Paul’s – but ALSO in the larger context so we get:

Piper–Doctrine of Justifaction–How I get saved–Anthropology Wright–Doctrine of Justification–Gods saving Purpose for the WORLD–Theology(mich)

***

Piper has called the bishop onto the mat over clarity: what does it mean to be saved, how am I saved? How do we apply redemption in your system? Does justification mean how this is applied? If so, it becomes of supreme importance... It seems the bishop has been very muddy in how his system applies justification to our personal life... are we to buy all without questions and real answers? Piper, keep him on the mat. We are learning more of his real views… (john holmes)

***

I think I’m with Wright on this one. For too long Western Christianity has tried to interpret first century Jewish issues with a post-enlightenment, neatly packaged Greek philosophy. While I certainly appreciate Piper’s call to a truly holy life, I believe that his interpretation of Justification is more a product of medieval piety and the views it produced. As Christians, I believe we really need to examine the lenses through which we unwittingly read the Bible. The Jews never believed that they could earn their salvation. God has always been and always will be a God of Grace. The purpose of the law was to set Israel apart from foreign nations and their 'gods' so that the name and character of YHWH could be known (and obeyed, etc... all of these stem from an understanding of the reality of YHWH). It was not meant to grind their moral confidence to dust or provide a means of earning salvation. Because of the faithfulness of Christ to the covenant as Israel's representative (and therefore the mediator between God and man), those who were once not included in the covenant can now receive the full benefits of it (forgiveness of sins, resurrection at the last day, eternal life, etc) and among God’s chosen people. This is Justification: those who were originally excluded from the people of God (and those who were but were not faithful) can now partake in the redemptive plan of God as his chosen people because of Christ’s faithfulness to the covenant. Thus the law is no longer what separates the people of God from the nations -- faith in Christ as the Messiah and climax of history does. ...how does Justification apply to our lives personally? Well, as a person who is now included in the people of God (assuming you have submitted your self to the Messiah as his disciple), you now share in the redemptive plan of God. Just as God was to use Israel to make his name and character known to the nations, thereby blessing them, so you too are to be used by God to make his name and character known to the nations. Through YOU the world will know the God who lavishes grace and mercy on his people, who longs to see creation restored through the faithful stewardship of his people and who will accept nothing less than all your heart, mind, soul and strength. Through you, having been justified as one of his people, the world will come to know the it has longed for. Practicals? Feed the poor because God has always identified with and cared for them. Love the foreigner because God has chosen to love you (even though odds are you aren’t from chosen Israel). Hold your community to account, challenging (gracefully of course) sin and always being prepared "in season and out of season" to confess Christ as the Messiah. Live in peace with your fellow man, Serve ONE king (not your own nationalistic agenda) and as Wright as put it, "like an angled mirror,” reflect the image of God to the world. These are the things that describe a person who has been justified by the faithfulness of Christ." (steve d)

***

The best point that Piper makes is that righteousness language in Paul seems to be more directly tied to moral performance than covenantal credentials (note the way that Paul lays out the charge “No one is righteous” in Rom 3:10-18). Piper, however, is only one of a number of voices protesting Wright’s proposals. Wright’s (and Sanders’s) work on Judaism has come under serious criticism. The Justification and Variegated Nomism series, Simon Gathercole’s Where Is Boasting?, and Francis Watson’s Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith all display the shortcomings of Sanders’s paradigm of covenantal nomism (on which Wright’s proposals depend) through hefty interaction with Jewish sources...

Wright understands “righteousness” language as a reference to “covenant membership,” he understands “justification” to be a verdict in the trial asking the question “who are the true members of God’s covenant people?” and he understands “works of the law” as what Jews thought of as the demonstration of their covenant membership and “faith” as what Paul asserted was the true sign of covenant membership. Thus, the question of whether an Israelite fulfilled the Torah in a way that would redeem from sins is a different question than that of justification.

Wright does, however, think that the point of the nation of Israel was that it was to redeem the world, which the Messiah did through his fidelity to God’s covenant plan, but he links this more with Jesus’ death than with Jesus’ obedience to the law.

The primary question is the meaning of “righteousness” language. Wright has asserted that this language means “covenant membership” when applied to humans; Piper claims that it refers to one’s absolute moral standing before God. What I find less than compelling about Wright’s view is that the terms in which the charges are laid out in Romans 3:10-18 seem to make more sense under Piper’s definition than Wright’s. The charge “No one is righteous” is laid out in terms of moral failure, and verse 20 summarizes the point with an allusion to Psalm 143:2, which says, “Enter not into judgment with your servant, for no one living is righteous before you.” This latter text appears to me to be addressing the trial of one’s ultimate moral standing before God, not a trial determining whether or not one is a member of God’s covenant people. Was the Psalmist really asserting that no one would pass judgment in the trial determining if they were a member of God’s covenant people? That would be the implication if Wright’s view of “righteousness” language is correct. I find it more likely that the point of this verse, and Paul’s argument in Romans 3, is that all are sinners and thus cannot pass God’s judgment on their own. The covenantal interpretation of “righteousness” language proposed by Wright just feels forced at this point, and he sometimes makes telling awkward statements that seem to contradict his view of what justification is. For instance, on p. 112 of Paul: In Fresh Perspective, Wright states regarding Galatians, “the point of ‘works of Torah’ here is not about the works some people might think you have to perform to become a member of God’s people, but the works you have to perform to demonstrate that you are a member of God’s people. These works, Paul says, simply miss the point, as Psalm 143.2 had indicated, partly because no one ever performs them adequately, and partly because…works of Torah would simply create a family which was at best an extension of ethnic Judaism.” In this quotation, Wright claims that no one can perform works of the law “adequately,” but adequately for what? The previous sentence claims that their function was to demonstrate one’s membership within God’s people. Is that what no one can perform them adequately to do? That just doesn’t make sense to me. Rather, it seems that for Paul, no one can perform the works of the law adequately to attain the blessing promised in the law contingent upon obedience. The program of Leviticus 18:5 (”The one who does these things will live by them”) fails (cf. Gal 3:10-14; and the neglected Rom 7:7-11). The point, I think, is that the Sinai covenant was not a covenant that a sinner could obey sufficiently to attain ultimate moral right standing with God (this sort of combines the two elements that you contrasted in the final sentence of your comment). I think that Wright’s exposition omits this point, and could use some revising. His definition of “righteousness” in terms of “covenant membership” just doesn’t seem to square with the significant ways in which Paul brings this language into contact with moral obedience and the condemnation of immoral action (Rom 1:18-32, which 3:9-20 is simply reasserting with respect to Jews). Thus, although I love Wright’s work and consider his books to be some of the most influential on my thinking, I am not persuaded on this point. (andrew cowan)

life saver

i am finishing the book the hole in our gospel by richard stearns, president of world vision. stearns does an excellent job of introducing global social problems to the uninitiated reader -- human trafficking, the plight of AIDS orphans, the stubbornness of abject poverty -- and calling on the church of Jesus Christ to respond with the heart of God and to be good news to the world. i was already familiar with the contours of at least some of these issues.

but here's what i found shocking: malnutrition is the number one risk to health globally -- greater than AIDS, malaria, and TB combined. nine million die each year from insufficient food. five million die from water-related illnesses. those statistics devastated me because, at least on the surface, it seems like these are the kinds of problems we could solve with relatively little cost. we're not talking about finding a cure for a mysterious disease or ultra-expensive medicines -- just access to clean water and enough nourishment. we have the technology and the resources. why wasn't this already done yesterday?

i was encouraged by a story from 60 minutes on plumpy'nut, a 'miracle' food made from peanuts, dried milk, sugar, and vitamins. that simple concoction is saving many lives. click here to see the video.

i realize that the real world is more complex than my brief description. providing this kind of relief is notoriously tricky. we run the risk of engendering an unhealthy dependence on foreign aid and unintentionally reinforcing the very poverty we want to alleviate. unjust governments and social systems oppress the poor, and people need more than just food and water for their starving bodies; they need freedom and the rule of law. and most of all, they need a chance to know Jesus who loves them and wants to redeem their lives, now and forever.

even so, getting plumpy'nut into the hands of children who are dying from malnutrition seems like the kind of thing Jesus (and the early church after him) might do. it's only a beginning, but at least it's a good one.

***

what use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works?
can that faith save him?
if a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food,
and one of you says to them, “go in peace, be warmed and be filled,”
and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body,
what use is that?
even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.
james 2:14-17